Patna High Court
Nagmani Pasi @ Nagmani KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the petitioners have no criminal antecedent and no possession of the seized liquor, notwithstanding the bar under Section 76(2).
Summary
The petitioners, Nagmani Pasi and Raja Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police seized 294 litres of illicit liquor and the driver named them as responsible. The petitioners argued they have no criminal antecedent and no liquor was found in their possession, contending that the FIR does not establish an offence. The State opposed, relying on the driver’s statement. The court, referring to the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, held that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the allegations do not constitute an offence. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with a set of conditions and a bond, reserving the right to cancel if antecedents emerge. The order remains effective for four weeks from receipt, subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act when the FIR alleges involvement but no possession is recovered.
- Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
- Whether the precedent set in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar is applicable to the present petition.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- seizure of liquor
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35435 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2026 Thana- IMADPUR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Nagmani Pasi @ Nagmani Kumar S/O Santosh Pasi @ Santosh Pashi R/o
Vill- Charugram (Bihta), P.S.-Imadpur, District-Bhojpur (Bihar).
2. Raja Kumar S/o Late Manoj Pasi R/o Vill- Charugram (Bihta), P.S.-Imadpur,
District-Bhojpur (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 21-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Imadpur P.S. Case No. 31 of 2026 for the
offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret
information, intercepted a tempo and there is recovery/seizure of
294 liters of country made liquor. Golu Kumar who was driving
the vehicle got arrested and he gave the name of these
petitioners as the persons who are responsible for the movement
of liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35435 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
2/4
perusal of the paragraph 3 would show that they do not have any
criminal antecedent and before the Police, Golu Kumar forced
to name them and nothing has been recovered from their
conscious possession.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that
arrested person has named them.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that nothing has been recovered from their conscious
possession and they do not have any criminal antecedent, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege
of anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. If, however, it is found that contrary to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35435 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
3/4
statement made in paragraph-3, the petitioners have criminal
antecedent, the present order shall become infructuous.
9. Let the petitioners be released on bail in the event
of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of concerned Court in connection with Imadpur P.S.
Case No. 31 of 2026 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for six months to mark their
attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be
submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35435 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
4/4
taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioners shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.